MANGALU SAHU Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein got their names mutated in the revenue records over the land in dispute which was objected by respondents No.6 and 7 herein before the Sub-Divisional Officer and by order dtd. 17/11/2005, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhamtari, set aside the mutation order in favour of the petitioners and remanded back the matter to the Tahsildar for passing order in accordance with law after noticing respondents No.6 and 7. The Naib Tahsildar again rejected the application of respondent No.6 Sukhram and declined to mutate his name in the revenue records. The order of the Naib Tahsildar, Kurud, dtd. 30/12/2006 was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer again but the Sub- Divisional Officer this time affirmed the order of the Naib Tahsildar leading to filing of appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur by respondents No.6 and 7. During the pendency of said appeal, a civil suit was filed by the petitioners herein and two others which was decided by the jurisdictional civil court and in which it has been held that the plaintiffs and the defendants are joint owners of the property and they have equal share in the property. The judgment and decree of the civil court was taken cognizance of by the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner by his order dtd. 16/10/2012 held that the judgment and decree passed by the civil court is binding on the revenue courts and set aside the orders of the two courts below and held that mutation be made in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment and decree of the civil court, as the civil court has already settled the dispute and the revenue courts are bound by the order of the civil court. The petitioners filed revision before the Board of Revenue pleading inter alia that by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec. 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code'), on 17/11/2005, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the Tahsildar and further that against the judgment and decree passed by the civil court on 23/3/2010 dismissing the suit of the petitioners, first appeal is pending before the first appellate Court and therefore that judgment and decree passed by the civil court / trial Court has not become final and as such, the Additional Commissioner is wholly unjustified in holding that the judgment and decree of the civil court is binding and directing the revenue court to proceed in accordance with the judgment and decree of the civil court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

(3.) I would first take-up the objection raised by the petitioners herein that the appellate court has no power to make remand.